HARD NEWS 02/08/02 - If We Had Any Trains, They Would Run On Time
HARD NEWS is first broadcast in Auckland on 95bFM around 9.30am on Fridays and replayed around 5.15pm Friday and 10am
Sunday on The Culture Bunker. You can listen to 95bFM live on the Internet. Point your web browser to http://www.95bfm.com
. You will need an MP3 player. Currently New Zealand is 12 hours ahead of GMT.
This issue of HARD NEWS is also available in MP3 form at http://www.amplifier.co.nz/amp/view?item_id=4831
and in text form at http://www.scoop.co.nz
. You can subscribe to the 95bFM Hard News mailing list at http://www.95bfm.com/hardnews.php
GOOD DAY MEDIAPHILES - there was an emblem of Labour's case for a return to the Treasury benches in the very fact of the
vote on Saturday. Immediately after the 1999 election, Helen Clark promised that the next one would be properly
organised and the votes would be through in good time. It was and they were.
Easy-vote cards did just what they said, and, apart from a booth in one of the Maori electorates coming up short on
ballot papers, there seemed to be none of the hapless returning officers, bogged-down counts and general disorganisation
of last time. People got to cast their votes and hear about the results in good time.
The idea of the party responsible for the last one - which couldn't even organise its own campaign this time - getting
its hands back on the levers was appalling. If you're going to have a government of managers, they might as well be up
Another point of interest is that if this had been a First Past the Post election, it would have been a screaming
landslide. Labour candidates won about three quarters of the electorates, in some cases with hugely increased
majorities. Of the 22 seats won by National candidates, Labour took the party vote in all but six. But it wasn't a First
Past the Post election, and that's not how people voted. It was a very MMP election.
Helen Clark was not the only one who found the campaign stressful, but it showed what it takes to unbalance her.
Basically, The Project would have been a tragic failure had it lasted only three years; or even been crippled by an
unworkable Parliament. Those were her nightmares.
It's the fate of leaders who must always have an answer to blurt and have it reported on the six o'clock news. But the
anger she showed at times was apparently born of a seething sense of injustice. Having restored respect to government,
she thought she deserved better.
She does, actually. But the tone that first flared up around Paintergate was indicative of a character flaw. Sure, it
must seem unfair to keep being nailed with something that happened before she was even Prime Minister, but the words of
Rabbie Burns are salient here: "Oh the giftie gie us, to see ourselves as others see us."
But if she felt she was in karma deficit, then the result redressed that. Short of the overall majority - which wasn't
going to happen - it's about the best the party could have hoped for. They were pretty lucky, really.
The unexpected arrival of United Future isn't even all bad news for the Greens. Turns out, the markets were poised to
have a fit of the vapours of the Greens achieved the sole balance of power. No one noticed, because we weren't really
focused on details like the economy in this election.
For all that their influence hasn't met expectations, the Greens go begin this Parliament in a fairly stable atmosphere.
Plenty of people would have been delighted to pin a confidence crash - however irrational - on the Green Party.
There is an absurd element to Peter Dunne's party, beyond even his selection by an entertainment device called The Worm.
In 1999, he was the leader of United, a multi-ethnic party with a Hindu vice president. Then United merged with Future
New Zealand, who had been the Christian Democrats, who fought the 1996 election in an alliance with Christian Heritage.
The merger appears to have been more of a takeover. Five of Dunne's eight new MPs are Christians of a worringly
happy-clappy type. But they do mostly have significant secular professional lives. And we're most of us are happy enough
to accept that Nandor subscribes to an Old Testament sect that holds a dead African dictator to be God's personification
Labour has also bought in the New Zealand Parliament's first practising Muslim. I don't happen to subscribe to any of
the above - although Nandor has far and away the better tunes - but people are free to believe what they want in New
I had a look at United Future's policies. They seem largely - I hate to say this - quite sensible. Perhaps they'll get
their Commissioner for the Family. It will just be necessary to make sure they don't get to define what a family is. The
Greens will provide a crucial balance of support on social issues.
I also had a look at New Zealand First's policies. Which are frequently lunatic. It's an indictment on the campaign
coverage that they weren't better scrutinised before the vote. Some highlights: Anyone charged with an offence has the
right to silence, or the right to bail - but not both. The gimmicky "three strikes and you're out" idea would see 10
years' jail for a third minor offence and would, of course, be an expensive nightmare.
There there's the "three year probation" for new immigrants - hey, why wait till they actually commit a crime? There's
the HIV testing of visitors to the country. And, in a final flourish of idiocy, the combination of the police, fire and
ambulance into a single emergency service. New list MP Pita Paraone was on the radio long enough this week to give every
impression of being a brown bigot. He's clearly in the right party.
Thus, Clark's election night dismissal of Peters was undoubtedly heartfelt. That is where her politics lie. Those are
moral issues. GM, however, it not. To her it's a technical issue that just got too big.
I predict there will be a substantial review of the issues before the moratorium expires, but expire it will, and the
Greens will honour their promise to vote against the government on confidence and supply for the rest of the Parliament.
Clark obviously feels she doesn't have much choice - she doesn't want another election bent like a staple over the GM
issue. After this one, I suspect few of us do. Labour can help, of course, by refraining from another go-early grab for
glory in 2005. As they say on South Park, I think we all learned something today ...
But the clarity of the full-term support on offer from United Future will probably see a formal agreement - short of
coalition - with them. The New Zealand Herald clearly hopes so: three editorials in five days didn't leave any doubt
there. Calm down, for goodness sake.
I do hope some agreement can be reached with the Greens. On a night of symbolism - all election nights are - it was
extremely symbolic that Clark went first to Fitzsimons for the support that allowed her to step out her front door and
talk about forming a government. It was made clear that Dunne wouldn't get a phone call till the following morning.
Coalition might be out this time, but it oughtn't be for the future. But one thing we can all do without is endless
bitching from parties to the left of Labour about Labour's destruction of its would-be allies.
This was no better exemplified than by John Minto's silly letter in Wednesday's Herald, in which he bemoaned the
"savage, unremitting personal and political attacks on the Greens and the Alliance from Helen Clark".
Oh really? I can only recall Clark saying two things about the Alliance. One was an expression of sadness at the party's
ugly split. The other was her imprudent, offhand quip about the Alliance poll in Waitakere - which she withdrew the
following day. Dumb, but hardly "unremitting".
Reality check: neither Labour or its leader destroyed the Alliance. The Alliance destroyed the Alliance. A single party
could not accommodate both Marxists and Rotarians forever, especially when its leader was more interested in a great
personal round-trip to his political roots.
Laila Harre had the misfortune to face an Engineers Union Labour candidate in her fight for her political life - some
latitude for the longer term might otherwise have been forthcoming - but politics is a hard game.
It's worth looking at the Herald Digipoll's reading of where the fractured Alliance vote went this time. The biggest
chunk - just over 35% - went to labour. Jim scooped up about 16%; the Greens only got 13.5% and the rump Alliance,
United Future and New Zealand First got roughly equal shares in the remainder. It might have been a left-wing party -
but on that evidence it was never a left-wing vote.
That failure to pick up the old Alliance vote must be one of the Greens' disappointments. There were some harsh words
passed between them and Labour in the campaign - especially during Corngate, which probably did more to damage the Green
vote than anything else, ironically. But the record is quite clear as to who opened the hostilities. And the Prime
Minister, as we know, is not a great one for turning the other cheek.
But the Greens didn't come up short because Helen Clark was mean to them. They took a risk with their campaign and it
One of the great things the Greens offered was their ability to bring new people into the political process - to attract
people who normally don't vote. But in the end, they didn't get their vote out, especially in Auckland.
By contrast, Labour, after polling unsatisfactorily in Auckland for the whole campaign, did get its vote out. There were
two reasons for this. One, centre-left voters who'd been considering a flutter were alerted by the Herald snap poll to
the fact that Labour's ability to form a government was not a given; that a terrifying four-headed right-wing coalition
was actually a possibility.
The other is all the unglamorous, time-consuming work that party volunteers do: canvassing, leafleting, driving old
folks to the polling booths. That is how you remain a political force over time - and it is the kind of tradition that
will, if they get it right, save National from terminal decline. But, on recent evidence, National getting it right is
far from a sure thing.
Nandor's absence from the Auckland Central campaign was a tactical one - but until the party actually does get properly
involved in the electorates, its support will be prone to the kind of flakiness we saw in the campaign.
The party's MPs already seem to be getting out of victim mode and on with the job. Their supporters should do likewise.
The Greens are in a position to make real gains on everything from the rail buyback to child poverty. They should also
go and see Act about a joint effort - ho, ho - on cannabis law reform. Start with medical marijuana.
As it stands, this government will nudge a little closer to the centre than the last one - that's what the voters have
decreed. But even then, I think weeping and wailing about a lurch to the right - however much Chris Trotter seemed to be
wishing for it on election night - is overdone.
The fact is, the orthodoxy has moved in only three years. National went into the '99 campaign with a plan to privatise
the roading network. Bill English fought this one promising to throw money at public services. Act's vote is static;
National's is seeping to the centre.
Jane Kelsey can bitch all she wants about Third Way governments and their terrible lack of ideology, but on the
evidence, that is what the voters wanted. We may simply have had enough of ideologically-driven governments over the
past 18 years.
This government might work very well; it might fracture horribly or it might just run out of steam. We'll see. But there
is a sense that normal (public) service has been resumed. Now all we need is the All Blacks to win on Saturday - G'bye!